Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable? Is it fair that Verstappen has won the championship four or five times in a row and is earning far more than everyone else? That is about sporting competitiveness—or competitiveness in anything. It is not the role of a regulator to start to redistribute income; I believe fervently that we will then get the law of unintended consequences.

My noble friend Lady Brady talked about parachute payments. This weekend was a perfect example of why the Premier League is the most popular league in the world. Crystal Palace held Man City to a draw. Can you believe that Crystal Palace—fourth from the bottom, right on the edge of being relegated—would have invested that much in players if they knew that, if they got relegated, they would lose all that money and face almost financial ruin in the Championship without it? I do not think so. I think a regulator would have said, “Oh, Palace, it’s not very sustainable having all that money when you could go down”. That would fundamentally alter the competitiveness of those games. That is the value of the Premier League. People will tune in, because they know that it will not be a walkover between Palace and City in this example; they know that it will be a competitive game.

Countries all over the world are prepared to pay more money than anyone else to see these games because they are competitive. Take the Bundesliga or the Italian or Spanish leagues: there are two or three top clubs and then a lot of also-rans, so it is not competitive in the same way. That is the danger we face here. By allowing regulators to redistribute income, on the basis that it is not fair that the top clubs are getting more, you will alter the whole competitiveness of the structure. Again, we say that it is not fair, but is it fair that the Championship is the sixth wealthiest in the world, while the Premier League is the wealthiest? Why is that? First, it gets a lot of payments down from the Premier League as part of voluntary arrangements. Secondly, it is because of how the whole of football has been set up for clubs to be promoted: money is being invested to give them a chance.

We have all said many times that this is our number one industry worldwide—there is no doubt whatever about that. We then have the second tier, which is number six worldwide. There is nothing else like that, and I believe we are at risk of putting that whole system under threat if we meddle in these ways.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I declare an interest, having acted recently for Manchester City in relation to the charges by the Premier League. I put it to the noble Lord that the system he and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, portray of Premier League clubs having the normal activity of a commercial company that can to do what it likes is simply incorrect. The Premier League itself imposes considerable restraints via financial fair play on what companies can spend and how they use their money. It does that because this is a sport, and the effectiveness of the sport depends on competitive constraints. What the regulator may or may not do is simply an aspect of that. The world that the noble Lord portrays simply does not exist.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He makes a very strong point, which is that the current system of regulation for Premier League clubs, and the EFL doing it for its clubs, seeks absolutely to set up that competitive environment and those financial fair play rules. My point supports what the noble Lord said: there already is a system of checks and balances, which is working well and making sure that our English Premier League is the first in the world and the Championship is the sixth. Why do we need a regulator coming in between that?

I perfectly accept that there are certain things that the regulator is important for, such as the breakaway league, but is it really the best place to start to have financial distribution from one club to another? That is why I brought this amendment forward. We are fundamentally asking a regulator to do something that we have not asked any other regulator to do in the whole of the economic environment. I thank noble Lords for their interventions; they have added to the debate. I look forward to discussing this further.

Briefly, my other amendments, Amendments 126 and 130, again try to ensure that we do not get mission creep, that we are quite clear about the information the regulator should be asking for from the clubs, and that we cannot set up a regulator that is allowed to go on a complete fishing trip in a lot of these areas. The amendments would set out what information the regulator can ask for from clubs and what they should provide in their strategic business plans, so that we are all clear about that without an endless list that goes on and on. Again, I speak in the context not just of the large clubs; a lot of these are very small clubs, without a large amount of resource to reply to lots of information requests. We need to be quite clear about what we are asking the regulator to do.

I hope this has contributed to the debate. I hope noble Lords will reflect on the fact that we are asking the regulator to do more than we do in any other sector—in our most successful sector too—and whether that is wise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving Amendment 51 on his behalf—and to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and then Amendments 71, 126 and 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham. To those final three, I have also added my name.

The amendments in this group seek to restrict some of the wider powers granted to the new independent football regulator in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendments 51 and 52 would alter the fundamental objectives of the regulator. As drafted, the Bill states that the objectives of the regulator include

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,

and

“to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”.

In essence, that is both a specific objective, directed at clubs themselves, and a general objective, which applies to English football as a whole. Leaving aside the important question of what constitutes English football—which we have already debated but not yet had much success in ascertaining—and indeed the question of what the Government mean by “financial soundness” and “financial resilience”, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham has sought through his amendments to probe the Government’s intention to set the regulator’s objective as being to protect and to promote. In place of those words, my noble friend proposes the alternative description,

“monitor and where necessary intervene”.

His amendment thus addresses the core question of how activist a regulator we want. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for underlining that point in his contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response both to the amendments and to that that core argument. That is, I think, what Members of the Committee have been probing in this group.

Clearly, as drafted, the Bill sets the independent football regulator an active objective to protect and promote English football. That objective is necessarily continuous and seemingly proactive. It could be taken by the regulator to require constant involvement, giving rise once again to the concerns that the Committee has raised about excessive activity and mission creep. By contrast, a lighter-touch duty to monitor the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football could allow clubs to get on with their ultimate objective of winning competitions without the overbearing and excessive involvement of this new regulator. I was struck that my noble friend’s amendment is explicit that the regulator’s objective would involve active intervention only “where necessary”. That is a helpful formulation and discipline when drafting legislation.

The question these amendments pose to the Committee, therefore, is whether we want an active, interventionist and potentially overbearing regulator, which might run the risk of getting in the way of our world-class football clubs; or a vigilant, diligent but ultimately careful regulator, which has a duty to stay its hand and intervene only when necessary. I have stretched from teeth to hands in extending the metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I agree that the regulator must have teeth and must be seen to have them. We would like to see those teeth bared from time to time, and to hear them gnashing but, like my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I would rather not see the scars from those teeth on world-class and highly successful businesses and clubs too often.

We have to strike the right balance to make sure that we have a regulator that commands the respect that it needs to, without biting too often and too damagingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on where to draw the line, both in the legislation and the words that we have, and on what the Government hope the Bill will bring about for the regulator.

Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, places a prohibition on the regulator from intervening in the internal financial affairs of regulated clubs. His amendment allows us to consider an important issue, on which a number of noble Lords touched. I know that my noble friend feels very strongly about the possibility of this regulator hampering the ability of clubs to operate as the successful businesses that they are at present, so I welcome his attempt to see whether there is a sensible way of placing some restrictions or limitations on the role that the regulator might play.

As I made clear from Second Reading onwards, we support the establishment of this regulator. We recognise that specific market failures have been raised and recognised, both by fans during the fan-led review and by the previous Government’s work, which helped to inform this Bill’s precursor. The ability of the regulator to have at least some role in regulating the finances of clubs will, I hope, allow it to attempt to address the problems that have been identified. However, we again want to make sure that it does not do so in a way that damages the successful businesses that they are.

Amendment 71 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and I put my name to it as well. It seeks to prevent the regulator from transferring funds from one private club to another. Mindful of the Government Chief Whip’s entreaties, I do not wish to repeat my noble friend’s argument, so I merely pose a question to the Minister: are there any circumstances in which she and the Government feel that a transfer would be appropriate? If there are no circumstances that she can envisage and set out, what are the problems with embracing my noble friend’s amendment?

I will also say something about my noble friend’s Amendment 126, which seeks to strike out Clause 16(3)(c). That provision of the Bill allows the regulator to require clubs to provide any “such other information”, as the regulator decides in its rules, when those clubs are applying for their provisional licences. Once again, those rules are not set out in the Bill, but are to be determined at a later date so, as clubs are planning their financial affairs for the near future and beginning their preparations for the licensing regime that will be ushered in once the Bill gains Royal Assent, they will not know what information they will be required to provide to the regulator. All we have in the Bill is a vague requirement that they must produce a “personnel statement” and a “strategic business plan”, but there is no further information here and paragraph (c) seems to allow the regulator to request anything that it may choose. That is a distinct lack of clarity for clubs, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on whether we can add to that clarity by being more precise.

Finally, Amendment 130, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would prevent the regulator from requiring information that is not specified in the Bill to be included in a club’s strategic business plan. The current drafting of the Bill grants the regulator a concerningly wide power to require clubs to include

“such other information as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.

This is yet another example of a lack of clarity in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting it. Where there is a lack of clarity regarding the regulator’s duties, there is uncertainty for the party that is to be regulated. It seems regrettable that the clubs should not get the clarity that they need about their duties under this part of the Bill but must wait until the regulator has published its rules in due course. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the kind of information requirements that the Government think that the regulator might be likely to include in its rules? Is that something that the Government have discussed with those who are preparing the regulator’s work in this area? Can she elaborate on this for the Committee’s understanding? I am grateful to her and to noble Lords who have spoken on this group.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is important to remember that Premier League clubs are already extensively regulated by the rules of the Premier League. The problem is that those rules are made by the 20 Premier League clubs themselves. They are also regulated, as all football is regulated, by UEFA. I gave the example a few moments ago of financial fair play. The virtue of the Government’s proposals surely is that the regulation will be by an independent person. That is what is required. The defects of all the proposed amendments in this group would be simply to confine the discretion of the independent regulator to respond to circumstances as they arise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Markham, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for introducing this group. I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which reminds us of why we are here.

Starting with Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, I understand that their aim is to clarify that the regulator should only intervene where necessary and in response to substantial risks. I assure the noble Lord that this aim is already appropriately achieved by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said—and apologies if I paraphrase this incorrectly—this is about ensuring a sound financial basis for football. It will be for the regulator to identify risks to a club’s financial soundness or the financial resilience of the system and to act accordingly. It would be disproportionate and unreasonable for the regulator to intervene where it did not think that the benefits of doing so would outweigh any costs imposed. The Explanatory Notes to this clause make clear that, in the advancement of its systemic financial resilience objective, the regulator

“will identify, monitor and if necessary take action to mitigate systemic risks in order to protect the aggregate financial sustainability and resilience of English football”.

However, we reject the notion that the regulator should be able to act only once risks have become so severe that they substantially threaten the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned the banking crisis; the amendment under discussion could be argued to be equivalent to a financial services regulator noticing sub-prime lending and credit default swap trading in 2007 but not being able to intervene until Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. Instead, the regulator should be able proactively to mitigate risks when they are identified. We believe that “protect and promote” appropriately conveys this, to ensure a future forward-looking regulator. However, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this does not mean that the regulator will be placing undue restrictions on clubs, pre-empting risks that have not yet materialised.

Turning to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s amendment is at odds with the aims and objective of the regulator. It undermines the very intention of a Bill that had the support of all three main political parties at the election less than three months ago. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State in the other place has stated:

“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/24; col. 244.]


We are looking to set up a predominantly financial regulator. Stopping the regulator from taking any action relating to a club’s internal finances would defeat that purpose. The regulator’s statutory mandate is to deliver its objective; it will achieve these aims using only the powers given to it in statute, such as the licensing regime and the owners’ and directors’ test. The regulator would, therefore, not become involved in the club’s finances, unless it thought that the action would lead to it delivering its objectives. Its powers place clear limits on the extent to which it can require things of clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

So I hope the noble Lord will understand that, from that perspective at least—going far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the benefits of light-touch regulation—I have deep reservations about state regulation, or even state-influenced regulation. I do not think I have ever seen a Bill that applies to sport with some 125 pages and 98 highly prescriptive clauses detailing the way in which a regulator would work, or indeed the powers granted to the Secretary of State to influence and control a sport. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have genuine concerns. If we have state-influenced and state-controlled regulation through secondary legislation, and also on the face of the Bill, we will be in danger of finding ourselves in conflict with the UEFA regulations that monitor its competitions, FIFA’s regulations and the International Olympic Committee’s regulations, should we wish to submit for entry a team, either men’s or women’s, to the Olympic Games. That is what concerns me; I have a genuine reservation about it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I point out to the noble Lord that the whole point is that this regulator is independent. Obviously, it is influenced strongly by government decisions, but it is independent. Surely, many of the concerns that the noble Lord is expressing—as, indeed, is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—are answered by the appointment of a sensible regulator who will act in a proportionate manner.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.

Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.

So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.

I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would

“ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively”.

I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.

We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.

So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.

One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.

In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?